= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlexSchell comments on CEV-inspired models - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
This is true about aggregating ordinal utilities, but doesn't hold for cardinal utilities (see Arrow's theorem). If you are talking about comparing utilities (i.e. choosing a normalization method), I'm not aware of a general consensus that this is impossible.
Economists generally regard interpersonal utility comparisons as impossible; hence the focus on Pareto, and then Kalder-Hicks, optimality. See for example this, though any decent economics textbook will cover it.
The problem, of course, is that utility functions are only defined up to an affine transformation.
Which is why I normalise them first before adding them up.